low light lens advice????????????????

Hi.
I'm starting with a 450d with the 18-55 IS kit lens, but want to build a set up that will give me normal to ultra wide. My main interest is people, places and architecture. I guess that also means street photos by implication
I've worked as a photojournalist before (more journalist than photo) using nikons at work, tho I never really learned to do more than point the thing to get a picture that matched the story.

So while the kit lens is apparently a good allround lens, and I'm considering putting a chunk of money into a Tokina 11-16 2.8 for the big stuff, but I want some advice on primes for low light.

The reason for primes is that my budget is limited, and it seems to be the only way to get low light lenses for interiors and night (street/spotlighted) exteriors without that expensive "L" on the name.
I also want something that will give me a '"normal"ish shot (without the effects of the ultrawide) inside buildings.

I'm not too fussy about noise and the like, so USM is only important if it is vital to making a good picture (I recently read a comment on a forum to the effect that someone chose quietness over optic performance when picking a lense); and I don't mind taking the time to focus something - stairwells love to pose for photos, and give all the time in the world.
What I'm saying here is that the old lenses like the 28mm 2.8 and the 'nifty fifty' 1.8 dont worry me cuz they're oldskool and, apparently, make a lot of noise (because a noise like a bee is soooo deafening!). I just want to know if they can give me nice photos of the inside of a gothic church until I get a higher paying job.
This brings me to my choices... and keep in mnd that Ive been up late reading forums and reveiws from all over so far, to try an learn whatfor, so I already know about the crop factor and the 1.6 adjustment thing with the mm.
Oh, and I know the 18-55 IS has these mm's in it, but I'm looking for something that goes below f/3.5. I also know about the ISO adjustment, but want to keep that as a backup plan.... let the lens do as much work as possible. plus there is the whole (visual)noise thing.

SO:

I was thinking about the 28mm 2.8 for the interiors shots. some comments I've read seem to say its good, especially for old school photography with the DSLR, and some sample pics I've seen look ok. its sorta cheap and works out to be 45mm equivalent.
But for twice the price (in AU) I could pick up the 28mm 1.8.
Now this lens doesn't get good comments, but my understanding is that it would work great in really low light, based on th 1.8.

So my first question is: how significant is the difference between 1.8 and 2.8?

Now I know that looks silly when I read it, let alone when you read it, but what I want to know is can the 2.8 give me low and natural light interiors with out a flash (and yucky shadows), or do i have to go to 1.8?
And is 2.8 ok under streetlight or for taking spotlit buildings?
Maths go over my head a bit, so I need advice on what kind of images I can make with either one.

Next...: if I go below the F/2 line searching for light (especially under street lamps) the other option for me is to take a couple of steps backwards while using a 50mm 1.8 mark II.
Again this seems to be a favourite with the old school (tho they lament the loss of the original version of this... would it be worthwhile trawling the secondhand shops for one?) and apparently has good optics, tho seems to have a reputation of crumbling apart like a good vintage cheese.
Again, this brings in the option of shelling out more money and getting the USM 1.4 version.
Again the reviews for the expensive option aren't always pretty, tho there seems to be more people going into bat for it.

Would I be better off going the 50mm 1.8 rather than the 28mm 1.8 (sizes aside for a moment) for night photos and dark interiors?

I mean this in the sense that for the price can I get away with a 50mm doing the 28mm job? should i ditch them all and go th 50mm 1.4 for really shooting dark places despite the bad reviews?

Finally:

At the moment the price of the 28mm 2.8 and the 50mm 1.8 when combined are still cheaper then the 50mm 1.4. so Should I try and buy both just to give me some options? or stick to one till I get the hang of not being able to zoom?

Oh, and if anyone can link me to samples of shots taken with any lens ive mentioned here on a eos 350 thu to 450 that would be a big help!

thanks for reading (all of it), hope you can help

f/2.8 is a little over a stop slower than f/1.8. The stop "sequence" goes -
1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16

Keep in mind the 50mm on a crop body has an effective 80mm field of view. Seems you want to do a lot of indoor architecture.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is what you want . Excellent low light, pretty wide angle of view on crop body, and top notch IQ.

Ditto the 30mm f/1.4.
As for which focal length, spend some time with your kit lens and get a feel for the kind of pictures you can take at 28/30mm and 50mm.

You can also consider the f2.8 zooms such as the Tamron 17-50, Canon 17-55, Sigma 16-50, etc. Makes a big difference over the kit lens in terms of low light.

30mm 1.4. two stops faster than 2.8, and its a great quality lens too, and not too bad a price.

The Canon 24/2.8 looks like a crackerjack lens. (I haven't owned it.)
It appears to be much sharper than the 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 28/2.8 or 35/2.\
See HERE.

How about using a tripod?
Using f1.8 doesn't give you much dof for your architectural photography.

ironchef31 wrote in post #6157785
How about using a tripod?
Using f1.8 doesn't give you much dof for your architectural photography.

Exactly what I was going to say. Agree 100%.

Hi,

I only quoted parts of your message, hope you don't mind. It was a bit long after all .

zetomenon wrote in post #6157449
.... Tokina 11-16 2.8 for the big stuff ....

. Very nice lens indeed. The added advantage at these focal lengths that F/2.8 is considered low light speed, as at 11 you can use 1/15s, and at 16 you can use 1/25s. With an aperture of F/2.8, combined with the DoF that these FLs give you, that is ample to get you around at iso 1600 and iso 3200.

28-30 mm it is, then .

F/2.8 is only 2/3 of a stop below F/3.5, which IMO is not a lot at 28 mm. I think you'd need at least an F/2 to make a real difference.

Noise is not really a problem, just use NoiseNinja, DxO or PS for noise reduction, and you should be fine, even at iso 3200. Do note that often there is no way to get that shot otherwise, and the noise (or grain) if you like, is nowhere near anything that film produces. Furthermore, if really need be, you can always convert to B&W, which tends to hide noise very nicely.

Well, IMO and IME, the 28 F/1.8 is a great, no, excellent lens, which has good, usable IQ at F/1.8, and gets very good to excellent at F/2 and smaller apertures. Check the Archive here on the 28 F/1.8. People really do like it.
28 F/1.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=157746

It's 1 1/3 of a stop, or the difference between 1/15s and 1/40s, just enough for me to get a sharp shot without body induced shake. Also, the IQ at F/2 is already better than the F/2.8's at F/2.8.

It depends on the lighting, and time of day. I shoot at iso 400 to iso 1600, 1/30s to 1/300s at F/2 to F/4 in natural light interiors during the day, provided there are a fair amount of windows illuminating the scene, without extensive curtain covers.

Under streetlight generally, no, except for those objects that are illuminated directly by the streetlight. Spotlit buildings I managed at 1/15s at F/4 at iso 1600 (IS), so 1/60s at F/2 should be ok.

That is not always possible, IME. Especially not over here in Europe, where everything tends to be a bit smaller, moving space wise.

I have one of the oldest ones around, like a few months after its introduction, and it is in perfect working order.

Personally, I agree, but then, many would not agree with me.

No, not for a general style of shooting. The 50 is a short tele on APS-C, while the 28 is a slightly short standard lens on APS-C. I used the 28 F/1.8, the 50 F/1.8 Mk I, and the 85 F/1.8 for low light and indoors shooting, until I replaced them all with L-versions. The only lens I kept is the "old school" 50 F/1.8 .
50 and 85 were used for portraits mostly, while the 28 was used for overviews and street photography type shots.

No, you often don't have the space. The 28 takes in about 3.5 times as much as the 50, so you'd have to back up quite a bit. Furthermore, the 28 F/1.8 has USM, and focuses in all light without a problem, while the 50 F/1.8 II tends to hunt a little when it gets darker, although I find that the older 50 F/1.8 seems to hunt less, but makes more noise (AFD engine, rather than micromotor).

As mentioned before, I think the 28 F/1.8 is probably more useful, as it is closer to a standard lens than a 50 mm is on APS-C.

Why not use the 18-55 IS to see what you like better, for now? Set it to 28 mm for a day, and go out and shoot, without zooming, and set it to 50 mm the next day and try that out, preferably in the same settings. The compare and see what you like best.
Do note that the 28 F/2.8, although a capable lens, is borderline for low light shots, so I would get it only in case 50 mm proves to be the preferred focal length based on a test as suggested above.

Check the Archive threads (https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141406).
28 F/2.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=492819
28 F/1.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=157746
50 F/1.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=186207
50 F/1.4: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=139085
85 F/1.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141406

Furthermore, there are a few other lenses that might interest you.
Sigma 20 F/1.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=192303
Sigma 28 F/1.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=455557
Sigma 30 F/1.4: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141274
Sigma 50 F/1.4: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=527827

thanks for reading (all of it), hope you can help

BTW, did you consider the 35 F/2, or the 24 F/2.8? They are supposed to be good lenses too, and not too expensive. I never got a 35 for digital, because I never liked the focal length, but it is recommended by many people who do like that focal length. However, I do like 24 mm, but I did get a 24L straight away, to replace the 28 F/1.8 when I moved to Ls. Very nice FL, I love it.
35 F/2: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141317
24 F/2.8: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=247089

HTH, kind regards, Wim

That statement implied an AOV of about 64 to 84 degrees (diagonal), which is where traditional 35mm film SLRs have Perspective Control lenses, 24mm or 35mm. On APS-C body, that is 15mm to 22mm range! Tricky to find fast prime lenses in that range! For example, I have a 20mm f/2.8 lens (inside that range) for my Olympus and a 24mm f/2 lens (outside that range) as well. And those are FAST lenses in their time!

You might want to take a look at the new Sigma 50/1.4.

The Sigma 24-60 is still a great deal at about $220. Is doesn't go wide though, so it may not be suited for your street shots. I have one, and really like it for a general walk around lens.

Thanks, this is a big help.

Ok, this is working for me now, although I find the more I learn the more I need to learn...
looking at samples and reviews and options you guys have put me onto I may have to bite the bullet and save a little more money for the low light option.
The Canon 28mm 1.8 could be good, and i like some of the sample pics for the Sigma 30mm 1.4.
Are there any opinions about the pros and cons of the Sigma v Canon given the Sigma is the cheaper option? (AU$519 v AU$699 - tho I havent looked through the discount importer sites yet)
A cheaper option could be the 35mm F/2 (AU$410). It kinda looks like a good middle ground between apature/price/FOV trade offs compared to the 28mm and 50mm options - but does middle ground equal mediocre?
the 50mm 1.4 is over AU$500, but I'm thinking that it could be getting a little long.
The more I think about it, I reckon indoor low light is more important than night out door, so I don't mind losing that option in the lense - I'll just use it as a reason to learn more about ISO. Would F/2 be a good place?
If I do use the ISO more for lowlight, maybe I should stick to 2.8, seeing as I'll be learning to use that with the Tokina 11-16?
In that case I could look at options like the 24mm 2.8, which is over AU$500 but seems very popular, or get the 28mm 2.8 for about AU$300, which would bring me a little closer to budget (not that thats not in tatters now anyway).

I'm still trying to understand the relationship between aperture and DOF, but is that another reason to look F/2 and up?(tho turning architectural detail into flat shapes and lines can be interesting). I mean, I can alway look into getting a 1.4 of some kind later on...

AAAARGH! too many decisions! Maybe I'll let it go for now and play with the kit lens and ISO!